UNCLASSIFIED   PARIS   00000216 
VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHFR #0216/01 0431057
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 121057Z FEB 09
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 5531

UNCLAS PARIS 000216 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
STATE FOR IO/UNESCO 
 
PASS TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - STEPHEN MORRIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNESCO SCUL
SUBJECT: WORLD HERITAGE WORKING GROUP ON ELECTION OF MEMBERS - PARIS 
MEETINGS, FEBRUARY 2009 
 
¶1. (U) Summary: The third meeting the Kondo working group on the 
reform of procedures for election to the World Heritage Committee 
(WHC) ended leaving several loose ends to deal with in May, and some 
recommendations that will guarantee future debates on the subject of 
equitable representation on the World Heritage Committee.  It 
proposed to solve the problem created by the failure of any Group II 
(Eastern Europe) state to win election to the WHC by creating a 
special ballot to elect a state from any regional group that risks 
not being represented on the committee.  End summary. 
 
¶2. (U) The third session of the Open-Ended Working Group on the 
Reflection on the Procedures for the Election of the Members of the 
World Heritage Committee, chaired by Japan's former ambassador to 
UNESCO, Seiji KONDO, in his personal capacity, met on 10 February at 
UNESCO headquarters.  Kondo opened the meeting by explaining that 
the recommendations of the Working Group would be forwarded to the 
next World Heritage Committee in Seville in June 2009 to "inform" 
members, and then would be offered for consideration by the World 
Heritage General Assembly in October 2009, thus bringing the Working 
Group's recommendations back to the body that had established it and 
set its mandate. 
 
Expanded Bureau 
 
¶3. (U) Given the overall goal of equitable representation on the 
World Heritage Committee, Kondo proposed that the current Bureau of 
the Working Group (Group I - Belgium; Group II - Hungary; Group IV - 
Japan), be expanded to include representatives from the Group V(a) 
(Africa); Group III (GRULAC); and Group V(b) (Arab states). 
Zimbabwe and Grenada were selected to represent the first two 
groups, with the Arab states deciding to wait to determine which 
country would be selected to join the Bureau. 
 
Consensus - Indian style 
 
¶4. (U) Before adopting the draft report of the last meeting, held in 
May 2008, a debate over the definition of the word "consensus" took 
place.  France objected to the draft report's characterization that 
a consensus existed that each regional electoral group should be 
guaranteed a seat on the WHC.  While many states had supported the 
idea, others had objected.  The Indian ambassador, Ms. Bhaswati 
Mukherjee, then told the Working Group that "consensus exists when 
an overwhelming majority supports something."  Both France and the 
US took the floor to contest her definition, saying that a majority 
notwithstanding, consensus is not reached when there are Member 
States present that dissent.  (Comment:  Mukherjee attempted to use 
the same definition during a debate at the World War II cultural 
property meeting last month.  End comment).  The decision was made 
to "take note" of the minutes, avoiding the need to agree on every 
element of the text. 
 
No Gentlemen Here 
 
¶5. (U) India and Afghanistan raised concerns about making certain 
actions, like respecting a gap between mandates, or refraining from 
nominating sites for inclusion while sitting on the WH Committee 
voluntary.  They both indicated that "gentlemen's agreements" simply 
don't work, and cannot be counted on to keep Member States in check, 
given their experience. 
 
One Seat Safety Net 
 
¶6. (U) Group II's absence from the current WH Committee, along with 
the desire of many countries to see a more equitable representation 
of Member States among the six geographic groups, resulted in calls 
for a variety of solutions to the problem.  More extreme solutions 
(Norway called for splitting up the entire 21-member Committee by 
geographic groupings as defined by UNESCO's General Conference. 
Other countries, including the U.S., argued against quotas, saying 
that we could find other ways to ensure balanced representation. 
Chairman Kondo, sensing a possible blockage, asked the Bureau's 
rapporteur (Hungary) and members of the WH Secretariat to work to 
propose draft language.  Kondo's efforts paid off when they were 
able to find a solution that didn't call for quotas, but rather used 
a three-step voting technique that seemed to resolve the problem. 
 
¶7. (U) The Working Group's three-step voting technique would work as 
follows:  The first ballot would be to elect, if needed, a country 
from a group that risks not being represented on the Committee. 
(Note: In a simulation for this October's vote, Group II would be 
elected, as it is not represented on the sitting WH Committee. End 
note.)  A second ballot would be held for the reserved seat for a 
country that does not have any properties on the WH List.  Finally, 
a third ballot would be held for the remaining seats.  The first 
round of the third ballot would be determined by majority vote.  The 
second round of the third ballot or, if needed, additional rounds, 
would be determined by the highest number of votes received.  This 
 
recommendation would, theoretically ensure that each of the 
geographic groups would have at least one seat on the WH Committee. 
Several countries indicated that they would have to consult with 
their capitals in order to get approval for the recommendations.  In 
any case, this recommendation will be discussed at the next meeting 
of the Working Group in May, and at the WH Committee meeting in 
June, before being brought to the WH General Assembly in October. 
 
Length of Mandates 
 
¶8. (U) The other points were covered without too much debate in this 
third meeting of the Working Group.  It was determined by consensus 
that everyone agreed to the four year voluntary mandate (versus the 
six years as originally set in the Convention). 
 
Gap Between Mandates 
 
¶9. (U) Again, after a relatively short debate, the Working Group 
reached consensus that a voluntary four year gap between mandates 
should be recommended.  India again raised the problem of a 
gentleman's agreement and the difficulties when it is not respected. 
 The problem of finding a way to make non-binding language binding 
remains to be resolved at the next Working Group meeting.  The Legal 
Advisor did note that if the General Assembly determines that there 
is unanimous agreement on a point, the Rules of Procedure may be 
amended without having to modify the Convention itself. 
 
Rotation 
 
¶10. (U) The Working Group believes that with the steps it has 
proposed, specifically regarding a voluntary gap between mandates, 
and with a broader and more equitable representation, the concerns 
about adequate rotation should be resolved.  It is hoped that a 
better system of rotation will improve the chances of the 186 States 
Parties to get elected to the 21 member WH Committee. 
 
Experts, Capacity Building and Observers 
 
¶11. (U) India commented on the perception that developing countries 
are reluctant to run for the WH Committee, and feel "intimidated" 
because their experts "don't measure up" to their counterparts from 
the developed world.  This subject had come up in earlier meetings, 
with some countries suggesting training periods for new WH Committee 
members.  There were several responses to India's concerns, 
including the fact that countries are free to participate as 
observers at the WH Committee meetings, and learn how it operates 
during its sessions.  A number of delegations noted that there 
should be a "larger role" for observers at the WH Committee 
meetings.  Canada noted that capacity building, for Africa in 
particular, and other regions, is something that can be developed 
through active participation by observers. 
 
Refraining from Nominations 
 
¶12. (U) There was clearly no consensus on the question of whether 
States Parties should voluntarily refrain from making nominations 
for the WH List while serving on the WH Committee.  (This was a 
campaign promise of the U.S. when we ran for the WH Committee). 
Some delegations suggested that one solution might be to give a "low 
priority" to those nominations should the Member State choose to 
push it through despite being on the Committee.  Serbia said that 
there is an assumption of "bad faith" if a Member State makes such a 
nomination, and added that "that's not necessarily true."  Another 
Member State used the phrase "conflict of interest," while another 
said it is normal to try to use the opportunity to lobby for their 
nomination while on the Committee. 
 
¶13. (U) India was the most vocal on this point, saying that they 
have "strong reservations" about any attempts to force them to 
refrain from making nominations, which they claim as a sovereign 
right, based on the Convention.  Ambassador Mukherjee said that 
should any language be proposed on this subject, she would ask that 
it be immediately bracketed.  Chairman Kondo cut off the debate, 
stating clearly that there was "no consensus" on this point, and 
that it would require further study. 
 
¶14. (U) Comment:  While Chairman Kondo managed to advance much 
further than expected, there are still a number of serious problems 
that will require a great deal of discussion before any 
recommendations are brought before the WH General Assembly in 
October.  It might be useful for the Interior Department to be 
represented at the next Working Group meeting in May.  While there 
has not yet been a date set, it will likely be latched on to a 
planned Information Meeting in late May, in preparation for the 
Seville WH Committee meeting in June.  End comment.  ENGELKEN